Thinking the unthinkable – the end of the Dutch river dike system? Exploring a new safety concept for the river management

Since 1100 the Dutch relied on their continuously expanding extensive dike system for keeping dry feet and dry goods. But how durable and safe is this traditional dike concept, now the sea-level is rising and rainfall patterns seem to change? Can they continue to raise their dikes in the future or should they give more room to the river? In the Dutch mind higher dikes are saver. In practice, however, higher dikes may lead to higher risks as the consequences of failure rise. What is wrong with the risk perception of the Dutch citizen? How should risks be communicated to the public, how should a public debate on safety regimes be organized? In a study project a new safety concept in which the Dutch rivers got a free flow was explored and communicated. In an effort to reframe the issue a transition path, scenarios, impact studies and ex ante evaluations of this new safety management regime were made. A new safety paradigm seems to be taking shape. Context scenarios show under what circumstances frequent flooding can be made acceptable to the Dutch citizen and the inhabitants of the Dutch polders.

[1]  M. V. Eeten,et al.  Dialogues of the Deaf: Defining New Agendas for Environmental Deadlocks , 1999 .

[2]  R. Kates,et al.  THE HUMAN ECOLOGY OF COASTAL FLOOD HAZARD IN MEGALOPOLIS. , 1969 .

[3]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  Making Low Probabilities Useful , 2001 .

[4]  Marjan Den Braber,et al.  Investigating Basic Principles of River Dike Improvement: Safety Analysis, Cost Estimation, and Impact Assessment , 1993 .

[5]  D. Mileti.  Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States , 1999 .

[6]  Ortwin Renn.  The role of risk communication and public dialogue for improving risk management , 1998 .

[7]  Boelie Elzen,et al.  Weapon innovation: networks and guiding principles , 1990 .

[8]  Towards an Operational Risk Assessment in Flood Alleviation: Theory, operationalization and application , 1995 .

[9]  R. M. Bras-Klapwijk.  Adjusting Life Cycle Assessment Methodology for Use in Public Policy Discourse , 1999 .

[10]  Frank Fischer,et al.  The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning , 1993 .

[11]  Peter Schwartz,et al.  The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World , 1996 .

[12]  Michael R. Edelstein,et al.  Contaminated Communities: The Social And Psychological Impacts Of Residential Toxic Exposure , 1989 .

[13]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications , 1989 .

[14]  Bert Enserink.  Integral assessment -- putting safety on the agenda for mitigation and preparedness , 2001 .

[15]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Reframing Policy Discourse , 2020, The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning.

[16]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Accident probabilities and seat belt usage: A psychological perspective☆ , 1978 .

[17]  N. Chan,et al.  The Malaysian flood hazard management program , 2003 .

[18]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Equity and Public Risk , 1980, Oper. Res..

[19]  W. Lowrance,et al.  Of Acceptable Risk: Science and the Determination of Safety , 1976 .

[20]  Menno J. Van Duin,et al.  Flood Management in the Netherlands , 1998 .

[21]  P. Converse.  The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics , 2004 .

[22]  Giampiero E. G. Beroggi.  Decision Modeling in Policy Management: An Introduction to the Analytic Concepts , 1998 .

[23]  M. Rogers,et al.  Scientific and technological uncertainty, the precautionary principle, scenarios and risk management , 2001 .

[24]  Bert Enserink,et al.  Building scenarios for the University , 2000 .

[25]  W. Silva,et al.  Ruimte voor Rijntakken: Wat het onderzoek ons heeft geleerd , 2000 .

[26]  M. V. Asselt,et al.  More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy , 2001 .